Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4489 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 268 of 2025 Petitioner :- Irfan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karm Veer Yadav,Balram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Short counter affidavit, filed by the State, is taken on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "1. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-12-2024 passed by opposite party No. 2 in appeal NO.2074/2024, (Computerized NO.C-202404000002074) U/s 5(Ka)(8) U.P. Cow Slaughter Act "Irfan versus State of U.P." by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition and also be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by opposite party no. 3 in Case NO.1908/2022 (Computerized No. D-202204230001908) U/s 5(Ka) U.P. Cow Slaughter Act "State versus Irfan" by the District Magistrate Ayodhya as contained in Annexure No. 2 to this wit petition. 2. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties especially opposite party no. 3 to release the Vehicle Registration No.UP42-BE/2826 (Apache Motorcycle) immediately in favour of petitioner. 3. Issue any other remedy.............................. 4. Allow the petition......................................." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the case of the prosecution is believed as it is, it would emerge that the motorcycle owned by the petitioner bearing Registration No.UP42- BE/2826 (Apache) is shown to be standing nearby the place where the alleged crime was being committed and only on account of this, the motorcycle in question has been confiscated at first by District Magistrate, Ayodhya and thereafter by Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya. It is vehemently submitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 5A sub-sections (7) and (8) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955") the power of seizing vehicle is only with regard to the fact that when the same is being used for transportation of cow or its progeny or even when transporting the flesh of such prohibited animals. Admittedly, the motorcycle was not being used for transportation of any prohibited animals or their flesh. Thus, both the impugned orders appear to have been passed against the provisions of Section 5-A and sub-sections (7) and (8) of the Act, 1955. It is also submitted that the trial of the alleged offence is going on before the trial court and the motorcycle seized/confiscated is standing under open sky and if after long trial, which may go on for years, the petitioner is acquitted, this acquittal would be of no use so far as his claim for motorcycle is concerned as the same would be deteriorated and would not be in a position to use for any purpose. Thus, the impugned orders being per se illegal be set- aside and the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner with the same registration number. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality in so far as the confiscation of the motorcycle is concerned as the same has been found standing nearby the place where the offence was being committed and it was evident that after slaughtering of the prohibited animals their flesh was to be transported with the use of the motorcycle and, therefore, the same was liable to be confiscated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the police party, after getting an information with regard to the fact that cow slaughtering is going on at a particular place, formed a team and apprehended the petitioner and other accused persons in the night of 31.03.2022. Flesh of prohibited animals was also recovered from the spot and on motorcycle bearing Registration No.UP42-BE/2826 (Apache) was found standing at the spot. It is also alleged that the flesh of the prohibited animals was intended to be transported by the motorcycle. There appears no dispute with the fact that the petitioner before this Court is the registered owner of the vehicle as is evident from the copy of the registration certificate placed on record. Section 5-A and sub-sections (7) and (8) of the Act, 1955, under which the powers are to be exercised by the trial courts, appear to be important and are being reproduced hereunder:- " 5A. Regulation on transport of cow, etc. - (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under this Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State, except under a permit issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit. (2) ………………………….. (3)………………………….. (4) …………………………... (5) …………………………… (6)…………………………….. (7) The vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of confiscation and release, as the case may be. (8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned District Magistrate/ Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may be." 6. Perusal of the said provisions would safely demonstrate that the authority/power to confiscate any vehicle has been bestowed on the District Magistrate or the Commissioner, as the case may be, only when the vehicle in question is being used for transportation of the prohibited animals or their flesh is being transported in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1955. It appears to be an admitted case of the prosecution that no flesh of prohibited animals or other animal was being transported by the motorcycle and the prosecution case is specific that the motorcycle was intended to be used for transportation of the flesh of the prohibited animals. Thus, the motorcycle has not been seized while transporting flesh of any prohibited animal or its progeny. The crime consists of various stages i.e. intention, preparation, admission and actual execution of the same. There are certain offences in various penal statues where even the preparation or hatches a conspiracy for committing such offences is punishable, as is evident under Section 310 BNS (399 IPC), but the same could only be an offence when the same is specifically defined so and every preparation is not an offence Prima facie, as is evident from the case of the prosecution, the apprehension was that the flesh of prohibited animals was intended to be transported by using the vehicle in question as the same belongs to one of the accused found performing cow slaughtering. This Court refrains from making any further appreciation of material/evidence available on record as the same is an area earmarked for the trial court. However, having regard to the fact that the motorcycle in question has not been seized while transporting any prohibited animal or its flesh, the same may safely be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to its final disposal under the orders of the criminal court where the trial of the case is pending. 7. In result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.12.2024 and 01.07.2022 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and 3, copies of which are contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the wit petition respectively are hereby quashed/set aside. 8. The opposite parties are directed to immediately release the vehicle i.e. Apache bearing Registration No.UP42-BE/2826 in favour of registered owner/petitioner immediately after obtaining a personal bond and one surety of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner, subject to the condition that petitioner during the pendency of the case before the trial court shall keep the vehicle in his safe custody and produce the same before trial court as and when required. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 MVS/- Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench